RugbyRebels

It will be interesting come the AI,

SA looked lost in the first half until Gatland got hold of the forwards and told them that running into a brick wall against all evidence was the answer.

Cant wait for 4 years time when Gatland rises from the dead and complains that the lions are trying to play rugby and ignoring players who dont have a brain

morepork wrote:

jngf wrote:

morepork wrote:

No. The backs were emasculated by selection and tactics in all 3 tests. The Boks will just eat forward carries all day long.

Thing is though if Lions locks and backrow we’re able to penetrate the gain line with their forward carries that would have really helped the cause - I’m adament that Watson and Falatau would have made a real impact if selected to start. Curry and Conan simply underpowered in this area.

That is meat and drink to a Bok defence. Are you Warren Gatland?

The point I’m making is that Lions forwards were carrying but we’re not strong enough to make it count

whatisthejava wrote:

jngf wrote: Curry and Conan simply underpowered in this area.

Cant blame Conan for being Conan, but you can blame Gatland for persisting with Curry, Lawes and Sinkler

Mako had credit in the bank but is now in debt
Itoje played well
AWJ looked a man semi retired, he may still hit rucks but if thats what you wanted , you needed a younger more physically capable player like Ryan or Gray

Ending up with 7 forwards from the team that finished 5th in the 6N is mental and when the journalists calm down a bit, realize they cant blame Toony for this mess they will turn on Gatland quite rightly for it

You can blame Fagerson if you have issues with Sinckler. Fagerson was terrible in the earlier games. There was no way he could be considered for tests based on those games.

Big D wrote: You can blame Fagerson if you have issues with Sinckler. Fagerson was terrible in the earlier games. There was no way he could be considered for tests based on those games.

He wasnt terrible but he wasnt world class every time he touched the ball and had zero credit in the bank,

whatisthejava wrote:

Big D wrote: You can blame Fagerson if you have issues with Sinckler. Fagerson was terrible in the earlier games. There was no way he could be considered for tests based on those games.

He wasnt terrible but he wasnt world class every time he touched the ball and had zero credit in the bank,

During the warm ups Fagerson dropped balls, gave away open field and scrum penalties and didn't nothing to redeem those issues. There was no way he could ve selected for the tests after showing scrummaging worse than the other options during those games.

So, bigger picture, has this tour done lasting damage to the Lions or will it all just be shrugged off in 4 years time?

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Well that was less shot than last week, but that’s a low bar. Some decent bits if rugby emerged during this game but too little too late.

Gutted for Biggar, but his substitution nearly resulted in a game of rugby as Russell just did his own thing. But we suffered from the ability of the forwards to generate momentum. We also made too many mistakes and wrote off good try scoring opportunities (Liam Williams!).

But you have to wonder what the result would have been if that team had been together for three tests?

Donny osmond wrote:So, bigger picture, has this tour done lasting damage to the Lions or will it all just be shrugged off in 4 years time?

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

I don't think it has. Gatland will go, Erasmus is world rugby's problem and new coaches will bring new ideas.

A big part of the Lions is the travelling fans and I'm sure there will be loads of them head to Oz.

Faz is dead.

Long live the Faz.

Donny osmond wrote:So, bigger picture, has this tour done lasting damage to the Lions or will it all just be shrugged off in 4 years time?

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

We lost a test series, that’s happened before. Much of the weirdness has been down to covid and hopefully won’t be seen again. But Suggesting that Gatland and or this tour has done harm to the lions brand is a bit excessive. If anything the concept that players on tour can force their way into the test team has been reinforced. Yes the tactics were crap and some of the selections were odd, yet the Lions tours of the early 80s were much the same and yet the tours continued.

So no, the performance of this tour hasn’t harmed the lions brand. What will cause damage is the lack of prep time which seems to get less each time.

morepork wrote:Faz is dead.

Long live the Faz.

I’m standing by for the first writer to suggest that if he had been in the squad, the lions would have won.

Gatland Gatland Gatland fucking Gatland. Can people please stop hiring him?

I did enjoy Nigel Owen's comments after the Lions try - he said that had the try not been scored, there would have been a penalty try and a yellow card for SA, so it was unfortunate for the Lions that they were able to score.

Shame he didn't take this to the logical conclusion that the laws of the game (or their interpretation) are fucking stupid.

Sandydragon wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:So, bigger picture, has this tour done lasting damage to the Lions or will it all just be shrugged off in 4 years time?

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

We lost a test series, that’s happened before. Much of the weirdness has been down to covid and hopefully won’t be seen again. But Suggesting that Gatland and or this tour has done harm to the lions brand is a bit excessive. If anything the concept that players on tour can force their way into the test team has been reinforced. Yes the tactics were crap and some of the selections were odd, yet the Lions tours of the early 80s were much the same and yet the tours continued.

So no, the performance of this tour hasn’t harmed the lions brand. What will cause damage is the lack of prep time which seems to get less each time.

That's all head coach baby.

tactics have been wobbly since 1997, and in truth the '97 side were bloody lucky. some elements have worked on various tours but nobody is going to be able to construct much beyond the basic. that Gats yet again tried to get away with being less than basic is hardly a surprise

whatisthejava wrote:For me,

Gatland wants players who follow his instructions, thats why the forwards kept their place and why the english players were wanted. They follow instructions better than anyone.
.

I thought the number of plucky, rebellious Celts had increased this week.

I get that all the problems aren't new, covid aside, but the professional game is constantly evolving with different power brokers.

I hope there's no lasting damage, I'm certainly wondering if I can make it to Oz in 4 years. It's not difficult to imagine club owners in England having different priorities. It's also easy to imagine provincial teams putting out under strength squads so as to keep international players and tactics wrapped up, which does change the atmosphere of a tour.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:So, bigger picture, has this tour done lasting damage to the Lions or will it all just be shrugged off in 4 years time?

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

We lost a test series, that’s happened before. Much of the weirdness has been down to covid and hopefully won’t be seen again. But Suggesting that Gatland and or this tour has done harm to the lions brand is a bit excessive. If anything the concept that players on tour can force their way into the test team has been reinforced. Yes the tactics were crap and some of the selections were odd, yet the Lions tours of the early 80s were much the same and yet the tours continued.

So no, the performance of this tour hasn’t harmed the lions brand. What will cause damage is the lack of prep time which seems to get less each time.

That's all head coach baby.

Of course it is Gatlands responsibility. But my point is the Lions are bigger than one head coach.

Donny osmond wrote:I get that all the problems aren't new, covid aside, but the professional game is constantly evolving with different power brokers.

I hope there's no lasting damage, I'm certainly wondering if I can make it to Oz in 4 years. It's not difficult to imagine club owners in England having different priorities. It's also easy to imagine provincial teams putting out under strength squads so as to keep international players and tactics wrapped up, which does change the atmosphere of a tour.

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

If the prep time is reduced any more, or the warm up games are just idiotically one sided then the ethos of the tour will have to change. Forget picking a larger group and encouraging competition, you might as well have a warm
Up game or two in the UK and just select a 23 with a few travelling reserves for the test series.

If we'd played more rugby like the golden 15 mins of that first half, we would have won the series and that would've been great. If we'd won with the turgid brand of rugby that we served up in the second half it would have been a bit of a shabby win. Overall - a disappointment.

Very few players (if any) have come out of this tour with their reputations enhanced (I can only think of Henshaw .) Just the opposite - they have shown their shortcomings at the highest level (even allowing for the extremely limited approach imposed by Gatland.) This is a sad state of affairs for British/Irish rugby. I was hoping to see an attack-orientated mind set, based on skills, speed, running and passing, but saw nothing of that in the Lions play. Of course, I suppose that was inevitable, based on Gatland's squad selections and his known past strategies. Still, only a twit of a coach would attempt to take on the Boks at their own game. I fear that the Springbok model of blattering your opponents into submission will now take hold with coaches as the successful one, and the way to win games. Enjoy your future rugby!

[quote="Spiffy"]Very few players[|quote]
Price
Finn
Wyn Jones


All come out much better

Loses
Everyone else

Spiffy wrote:Very few players (if any) have come out of this tour with their reputations enhanced (I can only think of Henshaw .) Just the opposite - they have shown their shortcomings at the highest level (even allowing for the extremely limited approach imposed by Gatland.) This is a sad state of affairs for British/Irish rugby. I was hoping to see an attack-orientated mind set, based on skills, speed, running and passing, but saw nothing of that in the Lions play. Of course, I suppose that was inevitable, based on Gatland's squad selections and his known past strategies. Still, only a twit of a coach would attempt to take on the Boks at their own game. I fear that the Springbok model of blattering your opponents into submission will now take hold with coaches as the successful one, and the way to win games. Enjoy your future rugby!

I think there are some mitigating circumstances for the players. We are coming off the most demanding season(s) the players will have ever had. They've been going pretty much full whack for 11-12 months solid.

I think a lot of it has to fall on the coaching staff (although I think Tandys defence was decent). The made the squad, team and tactical decisions. They also kept their head in the sand that the back 5 in the scrum weren't being dominated in the second half of games.

Spiffy wrote:Very few players (if any) have come out of this tour with their reputations enhanced (I can only think of Henshaw .) Just the opposite - they have shown their shortcomings at the highest level (even allowing for the extremely limited approach imposed by Gatland.) This is a sad state of affairs for British/Irish rugby. I was hoping to see an attack-orientated mind set, based on skills, speed, running and passing, but saw nothing of that in the Lions play. Of course, I suppose that was inevitable, based on Gatland's squad selections and his known past strategies. Still, only a twit of a coach would attempt to take on the Boks at their own game. I fear that the Springbok model of blattering your opponents into submission will now take hold with coaches as the successful one, and the way to win games. Enjoy your future rugby!

Gatland’s squad was totally confused. The weird thing for me is that he picked players with ‘skills, speed, running and passing’ abilities and then pretty much ignored them. Simmonds and Russell were only included for the final test as Hail Mary options and I’d confidently bet that Russell wouldn’t have come on until the last 20 (maybe even less) had Biggar not been injured.

We were told players like Simmonds and Rees-Zammit were picked for their pace on the hard track in SA (or words to that effect), but it seems that was only for the provincial games.

Given the gameplan, he would have been better off picking the biggest and hardest players who were eligible and not worried about skill …

IMO, the success of the current* ‘Springbok model’ will lose it’s appeal when they pick up a few defeats. Right now their World Champion status is based upon beating an England team that didn’t show up for the RWC final and a poor set of Lions performances. In both cases, the coaches tried to beat the Boks at their own game, which was totally the wrong idea. I am really hoping NZ rip them apart in the Rugby Championship and I’d back Argentina and the Aussies to give them a tougher time than England or the Lions did. They’re far too limited in the current guise to stay at the top for long.

*The reason I say ‘current’ is that they actually have the personnel to play a much more attractive brand of rugby. They’d be a lot more dangerous if they actually gave the ball to their dangermen more often.

Make of this what you will. Stolen from Russ Petty’s Twatter account.